Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

Your understanding of the issues at hand here isn't any deeper than that which led you to post a story that didn't even have its facts straight.

If you'll look back at news stories and voting records, you'll find that the actual events of history go against your ridiculous statement above.

---

"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 Bill 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

"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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

"[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, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators 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 destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

LOL......All these dem quotes from a time when Lil' Bush wasn't even in office. But hey, keep up the faith.:thumbsup:

Such hostility for a dem, I thought ya all were about keeping the peace. LMAO!!.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems.

---

Just can't resist.....:D

"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 th! e 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..."
-- 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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."
-- 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 ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Damn...looks like the left wasn't so "logical" after all.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

Since there were vast amounts of oil at stake here, though, it had to be justified by the Repubs.

---

So far the closest thing to a contract was awarded to a Canadian firm for exploration in the Kurdistan provinces.

As of now, ALL profits from Iraqi oil is going to the Iraqi government...NOT a foriegn oil firm. Now if you have something, anything, that would state that lil' Bush, lil' Cheney, and the evil repubs are pumping oil from that country I'd love to see the article. LOL....sounds like a 9-11 "Bush did it" line to me.:rolleyes:

Have a good one!:s4:

The 550 metric tons of yellow cake was routinely tagged, documented and checked by UN inspectors since 1991. All of the yellowcake was kept at a research center.
Why wasn't Saddam tampering with it? He was bringing illegal yellow cake from Niger which turned out to be a hoax.

INVO - Factsheet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

So far the closest thing to a contract was awarded to a Canadian firm for exploration in the Kurdistan provinces.

As of now, ALL profits from Iraqi oil is going to the Iraqi government...NOT a foriegn oil firm. Now if you have something, anything, that would state that lil' Bush, lil' Cheney, and the evil repubs are pumping oil from that country I'd love to see the article. LOL....sounds like a 9-11 "Bush did it" line to me.:rolleyes:

---

Well, I don't think anyone has ever claimed they were SUCCESSFUL in acquiring greater access to Iraqi oil. Usually the Bush adminsistration is associated with incompetence, not success.

But now it looks like things have finally turned around, and we've got our big fat oil contracts after all! Woooo-hoooo! It was worth it!:

British and US companies win Iraq oil contracts

Matthew Weaver guardian.co.uk, Monday June 30, 2008

The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today, fuelling criticism that the Iraq war was largely about oil.

The successful companies are expected to include Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.

Non-Western companies, notably those in Russia, are expected to lose out.

The technical support contracts will give the companies access to Iraq's vast untapped oil fields. Oil production in Iraq is at its highest level since the invasion in 2003. The Iraqi government wants to increase production by 20%, as the country has an estimated 115bn barrels of crude reserves.

The US state department was involved in drawing up the contracts, the New York Times reported today.

It provided template contracts and suggestions on drafting but were not involved in the decisions, US officials said.

Democratic senators last week lobbied that the awarding of the contracts should be delayed until after the Iraqi parliament passes laws on the distribution of oil revenues.

Frederick Barton, senior adviser at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, told the paper: "We pretend it [oil] is not a centerpiece of our motivation, yet we keep confirming that it is."
Last year Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve said: "Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

British and US companies win Iraq oil contracts | World news | guardian.co.uk

Here's a pretty good analysis and opinion piece by Bill Moyers about the no-bid contracts awarded to US oil companies in Iraq:

It Was Oil, All Along

by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

June 27, 2008â??Oh, no, they told us, Iraq isn't a war about oil. That's cynical and simplistic, they said. It's about terror and al Qaeda and toppling a dictator and spreading democracy and protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction.

But one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire and ashes. And now the bottom turns out to be....the bottom line. It is about oil.

Alan Greenspan said so last fall. The former chairman of the Federal Reserve, safely out of office, confessed in his memoir, â??...Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.â?�

He elaborated in an interview with the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands, our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first Gulf War."

Remember, also, that soon after the invasion, Donald Rumsfeldâ??s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, told the press that war was our only strategic choice.

â??We had virtually no economic options with Iraq,â?� he explained, â??because the country floats on a sea of oil.â?�

Shades of Daniel Plainview, the monstrous petroleum tycoon in the movie â??There Will Be Blood.â?� Half-mad, he exclaims, "There's a whole ocean of oil under our feet!" then adds, "No one can get at it except for me!"

No wonder American troops only guarded the Ministries of Oil and the Interior in Baghdad, even as looters pillaged museums of their priceless antiquities. They were making sure no one could get at the oil except... guess who?

Hereâ??s a recent headline in The New York Times: "Deals with Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back."

Read on: "Four western companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power."

There you have it. After a long exile, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP are back in Iraq. And on the wings of no-bid contracts â?? that's right, sweetheart deals like those given Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater. The kind of deals you get only if you have friends in high places.

And these war profiteers have friends in very high places.

Letâ??s go back a few years to the 1990s, when private citizen Dick Cheney was running Halliburton, the big energy service company.

Thatâ??s when he told the oil industry that, â??By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.â?�

Fast forward to Cheneyâ??s first heady days in the White House. The oil industry and other energy conglomerates have been handed backdoor keys to the White House, and their CEOs and lobbyists were trooping in and out for meetings with their old pal, now Vice President Cheney.

The meetings are secret, conducted under tight security, but as we reported five years ago, among the documents that turned up from some of those meetings were maps of oil fields in Iraq â?? and a list of companies who wanted access to them.

The conservative group Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club filed suit to try to find out who attended the meetings and what was discussed, but the White House fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep the press and public from learning the whole truth.

Think about it. These secret meetings took place six months before 9/11, two years before Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq. We still donâ??t know what they were about.

What we know is that this is the oil industry thatâ??s enjoying swollen profits these days.

It would be laughable if it werenâ??t so painful to remember that their erstwhile cheerleader for invading Iraq â?? the press mogul Rupert Murdoch â?? once said that a successful war there would bring us $20 a barrel of oil.

The last time we looked, it was more than $140 a barrel. Where are you, Rupert, when the facts need checking and the predictions are revisited?

At a congressional hearing this week, James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who exactly twenty years ago alerted Congress and the world to the dangers of global warming, compared the chief executives of Big Oil to the tobacco moguls who denied that nicotine is addictive or that there's a link between smoking and cancer.

Hansen, who the administration has tried again and again to silence, said these barons of black gold should be tried for committing crimes against humanity and nature in opposing efforts to deal with global warming.

Perhaps those sweetheart deals in Iraq should be added to his proposed indictments. They have been purchased at a very high price.

Four thousand American soldiers dead, tens of thousands permanently wounded for life, hundreds of thousands of dead and crippled Iraqis plus five million displaced, and a cost that will mount into trillions of dollars.

The political analyst Kevin Phillips says America has become little more than an "energy protection force," doing anything to gain access to expensive fuel without regard to the lives of others or the earth itself.

One thinks again of Daniel Plainview in â??There Will Be Blood.â?� His lust for oil came at the price of his son and his soul.


It Was Oil, All Along | BaltimoreChronicle.com

1st off, the gov't said they were told by British intelegence about the Niger yellowcake deal, and Britain still stands behind it to this day. Wilson was and is a HACK despite being sent on a bullshit mission by his wife (the NOT COVERT Valerie Plame), which he went over there and talked to about 2 people and did exactly NO investigating to come up with his lame opinion. He did not PROVE anything one way or the other, he just gave a very uninformed opinion. And it was Richard Armitage (no friend of GWB) who leaked her name (why was he never charged if it was such a big deal).

""So far the closest thing to a contract was awarded to a Canadian firm for exploration in the Kurdistan provinces.

As of now, ALL profits from Iraqi oil is going to the Iraqi government...NOT a foriegn oil firm. Now if you have something, anything, that would state that lil' Bush, lil' Cheney, and the evil repubs are pumping oil from that country I'd love to see the article. LOL....sounds like a 9-11 "Bush did it" line to me.""


I am struggling to not get involved in this...but it would appear from the above few posts that psycho4B owes an apology to Drider...and an admission that he is so dug in within the republican trenches that he just won't admit the slightest bit of wrongdoing by his noble leaders. Its Ok, just admit it:thumbsup:

Or you could change the subject or just address this post instead of the topic above that just proved your last post to be entirely wrong

Mc danger it looks like you are from Wisconsin...were you in Niger when the above mentioned investigation took place? Do you have any facts to back up your assertions that "two people were spoken to"?
That is silly. Why do YOU think her cover was blown?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

And please, try to restrain yourselves from blasting me for using fox as a source, the tactic of trying to attack and discredit someone on these forums rather than argue the relevant points of the discussion is extremely predictable and very weak.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

LMFAO
Shit man you are right! I am sure that "Iraq Body Count" the website which is hard left, I just gonna guess, George Soros funded, anti-American site is going to have better information than the pentagon, and our own military.:wtf: But just in case they don't, then there's always Wiki.:wtf:

---

Irony...;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McDanger

1st off, the gov't said they were told by British intelegence about the Niger yellowcake deal, and Britain still stands behind it to this day. Wilson was and is a HACK despite being sent on a bullshit mission by his wife (the NOT COVERT Valerie Plame), which he went over there and talked to about 2 people and did exactly NO investigating to come up with his lame opinion. He did not PROVE anything one way or the other, he just gave a very uninformed opinion. And it was Richard Armitage (no friend of GWB) who leaked her name (why was he never charged if it was such a big deal).

---

If you know a fact is false, then even if you attribute it to someone else, if you pass the falsehood on as truth, it is still a lie. Just because Bush attributed the faulty intelligence to the British does not mean it was not a lie --- he knew that OUR intelligence thought the claim was false. So it's really irrellevant whether British intelligence sources stand by their initial claim or not. In addition, I would be surprised if they do still stand by it, because the documents on which the claims were based are KNOWN to be forgeries.

The CIA investigated the claims and concluded they were false. Prior to Bush publicly making the claim about the Nigerian yellowcake, CIA Director George Tenet twice sent memos asking that Bush not make that claim because the CIA did not support that claim. The State Department checked out the claim and concluded it was false. But Bush still publicly made the Nigerian yellowcake claim, despite the CIA and State department not supporting it. That amounts to a lie. After the claim was made publicly, but prior to the war, the IAEA examined the documents and concluded immediately that they were obvious forgeries.

This is from a blog but it refernces veifiable facts.
To summarize, then: In February 1999 one of Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear goons paid a visit to Niger, but his identity was not noticed by Joseph Wilson, nor emphasized in his "report" to the CIA, nor mentioned at all in his later memoir. British intelligence picked up the news of the Zahawie visit from French and Italian sources and passed it on to Washington. Zahawie's denials of any background or knowledge, in respect of nuclear matters, are plainly laughable based on his past record, and he is still taken seriously enough as an expert on such matters to be invited (as part of a Jordanian delegation) to Hans Blix's commission on WMD. Two very senior and experienced diplomats in the field of WMDs and disarmament, both of them from countries by no means aligned with the Bush administration, have been kind enough to share with me their disquiet at his activities. What responsible American administration could possibly have viewed any of this with indifference?

The subsequent mysteriously forged documents claiming evidence of an actual deal made between Zahawie and Niger were circulated well after the first British report (and may have been intended to discredit it) and have been deemed irrelevant by two independent inquiries in London. The original British report carefully said that Saddam had "sought" uranium, not that he had acquired it. The possible significance of a later return visitâ??this time by a minister from Niger to Baghdad in 2001â??has not as yet been clarified by the work of the Iraq Survey Group.

This means that both pillars of the biggest scandal-mongering effort yet mounted by the "anti-war" movementâ??the twin allegations of a false story exposed by Wilson and then of a state-run vendetta undertaken against him and the lady wife who dispatched him on the missionâ??are in irretrievable ruins. The truth is the exact polar opposite. The original Niger connection was both authentic and important, and Wilson's utter failure to grasp it or even examine it was not enough to make Karl Rove even turn over in bed. All the work of the supposed "outing" was inadvertently performed by Wilson's admirer Robert Novak. Of course, one defends the Bush administration at one's own peril. Thanks largely to Stephen Hadley, assistant to the president for national security affairs, our incompetent and divided government grew so nervous as to disown the words that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union address. But the facts are still the facts, and it is high time that they received one-millionth of the attention that the "Plamegate" farce has garnered.

McDanger, I think maybe I'll take a pass on your post from blog that "refernces veifiable facts." Seeing as those facts are not commonly known or accepted, you might have to actually provide a source that does verify them if you want anyone to take them seriously.

The facts that ARE commonly known and accepted are that the CIA and State Department advised the president that they could not support the Niger claim and that he should not state that claim publicly.

Considering how much trouble this has caused the administration, it seems like if there were actually some kind of evidence to support that claim, they would have provided it. Your blog post claims that the Bush adminstration was too incompetent and divided to provide the proof that this blogger claims to have. That seems ridiculous. The Bush adminstration is certainly incompetent and divided, but the idea that they couldn't get themselves together enough to present the same proof that this blogger claims to have seems unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

Dems have known since before the first Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was awful. Bush the First did and the opposing party members of the legislature acknowledged that during his administration. Clinton knew well that he was dangerous. No one on either side of the aisle has ever disputed that. Our allies in Israel and Jordan have known this for ages, too. Again, that was never in dispute, just like the existence of this yellowcake wasn't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

"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 Bill 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

"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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

"[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, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators 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 destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

LOL......All these dem quotes from a time when Lil' Bush wasn't even in office. But hey, keep up the faith.:thumbsup:

Such hostility for a dem, I thought ya all were about keeping the peace. LMAO!!.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

P4B, didn't you just prove Birdgirl's point here? Didn't she say Democrats knew Hussein was dangerous?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

P4B, didn't you just prove Birdgirl's point here? Didn't she say Democrats knew Hussein was dangerous?

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73
So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems.

We invaded because of WMD's....as you can see there were MANY dems that thought the same based on intelligence reports before and during Bush. Now if the left wants to spin this into the repubs going after oil...LOL, I guess they can live the fairy tail.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Originally Posted by birdgirl73
So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems.

We invaded because of WMD's....as you can see there were MANY dems that thought the same based on intelligence reports before and during Bush. Now if the left wants to spin this into the repubs going after oil...LOL, I guess they can live the fairy tail.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

There was one republican senator and 5 republican house representatives that voted against the war. Does that mean they live in a fairy tale as well?

A spade is a spade. Everyone one of them was wrong to gauge Iraq was an imminent threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Originally Posted by birdgirl73
So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems.

We invaded because of WMD's....as you can see there were MANY dems that thought the same based on intelligence reports before and during Bush. Now if the left wants to spin this into the repubs going after oil...LOL, I guess they can live the fairy tail.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Just because a person believed there were WMDs does not mean they were for this war. I believed there were WMDs based on what I had heard from the President, and I did not think the war was a good idea for all the reasons Bush senior, Powell and Cheney had told us in 1991. And when I found out there actually were no WMDs, I was doubly pissed off about it. And when I found out it wasn't all just a bad mistake but was actually a bunch of lies, then I was pissed livid.

How many of those who believed in the WMDs actually had access to exactly the same intelligence that Bush had, versus how many were basing their opinions on Bush's lies? Take the example of this thread, how many in congress knew that the Niger yellowcake story was false? The CIA and the State Department told Bush it was false, but did they inform congress too? I don't know, but I doubt it. You can't really hold someone accountable for decisions made based on the lies of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

How many of those who believed in the WMDs actually had access to exactly the same intelligence that Bush had, versus how many were basing their opinions on Bush's lies?

---

"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 Bill 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

"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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

"[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, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators 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 destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

IF your trying to imply that there was no intelligence during the Clinton years I'd have to agree with ya. If not, you can't spin the fact that these people not only agreed with Bush before he was in office but these same people were all on board when we invaded based on what they were told for YEARS.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

"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 Bill 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

"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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

"[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, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators 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 destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

IF your trying to imply that there was no intelligence during the Clinton years I'd have to agree with ya. If not, you can't spin the fact that these people not only agreed with Bush before he was in office but these same people were all on board when we invaded based on what they were told for YEARS.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

I think we are getting way off track from the original point of this thread that the yellowcake we knew about since 1991 somehow meant Bush had not lied about the Nigerian yellowcake. That's wrong --- he lied about the Nigerian yellowcake.

This long list of quotes does not indicate any of these people were for the war --- it indicates they thought Saddam Hussein was dangerous. I agreed with every one of these statements but did not agree with the war. You've listed the President, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor and prominent members of both houses. Don't you think that if they had thought Hussein was enough of a threat to justify a war, they could have had one? Obviously they didn't think they needed a war to deal with the problem at that point.

Earlier you also listed a long list of prominent Democrats who seemed to make statements in favor of the war after Bush took office and during the runup to the war. Those are the people I am asking about. Did they have access to Bush's intelligence sources? Or were they basing their pro-war opinion on Bush's lies? I know that for a lot of regular citizens, they based their pro-war opinions on Bush's lies and felt seriously burned about it later.

BILL TITLE: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Republican Yeas 215 Nays 6
Democratic Yeas 81 Nays 126

Itâ??s going to continue to happen as long as you have politicians in the pockets of the elite, they are not acting in the interest of your country. 9 Trillion dollars in debt, was it worth it? Obamessiah isnâ??t the answer.

Bush happens..

[YOUTUBE]7qjCy4ryPJk[/YOUTUBE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I think we are getting way off track from the original point of this thread that the yellowcake we knew about since 1991 somehow meant Bush had not lied about the Nigerian yellowcake. That's wrong --- he lied about the Nigerian yellowcake.

---

IF he knowingly lied to congress don't ya think he would have been up on charges? Didn't work for Clinton about a b.j., why would Bush dodge the bullet? MAYBE the information he recieved was false?

Bush said then, â??The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .â?� Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

-A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bushâ??s 16 words â??well founded.â?�
-A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from â??a number of intelligence reports,â?� a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
-Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bushâ??s 16 words a â??lieâ?�, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
-Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

This long list of quotes does not indicate any of these people were for the war --- it indicates they thought Saddam Hussein was dangerous. I agreed with every one of these statements but did not agree with the war. You've listed the President, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor and prominent members of both houses. Don't you think that if they had thought Hussein was enough of a threat to justify a war, they could have had one? Obviously they didn't think they needed a war to deal with the problem at that point.

---

Clinton was about as anxious to get involved in Iraq as he was the genocide in Rwanda. He was knee deep in impeachment hearings and they thought that dealing with reality might be perceived as a distraction on his lil' fling. As for Congress and Senate.....Bill's lil' affair was much more "news worthy" at the time for face time on the tube and finally being able to bring down a President was on all their minds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Earlier you also listed a long list of prominent Democrats who seemed to make statements in favor of the war after Bush took office and during the runup to the war. Those are the people I am asking about. Did they have access to Bush's intelligence sources? Or were they basing their pro-war opinion on Bush's lies? I know that for a lot of regular citizens, they based their pro-war opinions on Bush's lies and felt seriously burned about it later.

---

We were just gettin over the shock of 9-11 and the thought of another attack was out of the question. The dems CLEARLY thought that Saddam either had or was looking to aquire WMD's and if they allowed this to go on it would NOT be forgiven by the American people if attacked. After all, the Clinton administration was the one that let Osama slip through their fingers more than once. Strike two with Saddam would have probably meant alot of their future electability.

I find it amazing that these same people all of a sudden flip-flopped on their stance, like you stated for yourself, when we didn't find a nuclear launch site. Fact is if Saddam wanted to load a scud with this material he could have. If he wanted to drop this material over Sadr City he could have. So what are the effects on humans if they inhale large quantities of this dust? Do you really think that the U.N.'s lil' lock outs could have stopped him? He loved the money...what about sales of this material to Al-Quada?

I also find it amusing that people talk of Bush going after Iraqs oil like he was putting it in a personal storage facility. We could have handled this like Russia but instead let them have open elections and the choice of who to award contracts to. This "Bush lied for Oil" is laughable to say the least.

Have a good one!:s4:

What else does Niger export? goats?

Onions and livestock apparently :thumbsup:

there is only one thing clear about this war:

No one is clear on why we are at war.



some say oil, others say WMDs. where is the proof, how can the proof be verified?


that's all i want. verifiable proof of WHY we are in Iraq.

Protecting Israel? They are extremely paranoid and I can see how they percieved Saddam to be a threat and now Ahmadinejad, replacing their leaders with puppets is the safe route for them..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

there is only one thing clear about this war:

No one is clear on why we are at war.



some say oil, others say WMDs. where is the proof, how can the proof be verified?


that's all i want. verifiable proof of WHY we are in Iraq.

---

I think we will never know the real reason we WENT into Iraq. But the reason we are IN Iraq is because we WENT in. And now the reason we STAY in is because we can't afford to LEAVE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I think we will never know the real reason we WENT into Iraq. But the reason we are IN Iraq is because we WENT in. And now the reason we STAY in is because we can't afford to LEAVE.

---

I don't think I've ever heard the conflict in Iraq put so simply yet completely sum up everything. Someone give this man a cookie.

Something else the dems knew.... When Bush announced his "Axis Of Evil" in 2002, he would come up with whatever reason he could to make people scared, so he could go and avenge his fathers failure at removing Saddam Hussein. I realized right then he would invade Iraq. And, I'll be damned, a year later we invaded. I have no doubt if the Iraq war had ended swiftly, we next would have attacked Iran. And if time and money permitted, North Korea would be next. WMDs was the Americans worst fear, so he fed off it. Plain and simple.

Quote:

---

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port yesterday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

---

Link Here

I think people try to make the Iraq war more complicated than it is. Bush was just aching to get even with Sadam over his attempted assassination of his dad. And when 9-11 happened there was his excuse. And as a plus a bunch of his chronies would get rich over the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I think we are getting way off track from the original point of this thread that the yellowcake we knew about since 1991 somehow meant Bush had not lied about the Nigerian yellowcake. That's wrong --- he lied about the Nigerian yellowcake.

---

Maybe it's just me but I've been reading this thread and I have to say I find it hilarious all the flip flopping and people who pull the thread off topic, and then watch these posters backtrack and say "well we're getting off topic now" when someone responds with some evidence or information that should genuinely be looked at and considered when trying to pin the blame on the president.

I have nothing political to add but I felt the need to point out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy by a number of posters in this thread. I wonder if people even realize that they're doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I think we will never know the real reason we WENT into Iraq. But the reason we are IN Iraq is because we WENT in. And now the reason we STAY in is because we can't afford to LEAVE.

---

I agree with your first sentence in this statement. Can you agree that taking Saddam out of power was not necessarily a bad thing?

Keep in mind this does not justify us going into Iraq, I just want to know if you believe taking Saddam out of power was good or bad. That is all I'm interested in knowing and all I'll respond to.

I don't believe you answered this question when asked earlier by another poster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

I think people try to make the Iraq war more complicated than it is. Bush was just aching to get even with Sadam over his attempted assassination of his dad. And when 9-11 happened there was his excuse. And as a plus a bunch of his chronies would get rich over the war.

---

Evidence please? Otherwise you're just spouting heresay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

I think people try to make the Iraq war more complicated than it is. Bush was just aching to get even with Sadam over his attempted assassination of his dad. And when 9-11 happened there was his excuse. And as a plus a bunch of his chronies would get rich over the war.

---

When did Saddam try to assassinate his dad? I can't imagine the dictator would even be foolish enough to try; it's not like anybody else stood a chance. :wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey

When did Saddam try to assassinate his dad? I can't imagine the dictator would even be foolish enough to try; it's not like anybody else stood a chance. :wtf:

---

So, Did Saddam Hussein Try to Kill Bush's Dad? - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum

Fairly good and accurate article that seems to be written from a neutral point of view.

George W. has said on several occassions spoken about the assassination attempt. However that's not our reasoning for going over there. If you want someone dead you usually just send in a special ops team or hire modern day mercenaries/assassins.

People ignore the fact that Clinton also attacked Iraq.... but I guess good ole Bill Clinton was just trying to get revenge for George W's dad also.. .right?

LOL

CNN - Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998

ps: I know you don't think W attacked Iraq for his dad. This post was in response to you but directed more at the people who believe in heresay.

Well I'll be damned, he did try to kill George's daddy! Had America existed a thousand years ago, they'd have all the valid pretext in the world for war! Ah well, that was a better time, a simpler time...