Democrats Lied, Kids Died

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

The Democrats did not have the same access to intelligence that the White House did.. They got the same information the rest of Congress did, nothing more and nothing less. They didn't lie, they were given bad information.

However, there's ample evidence to suggest that the intelligence was created around the desired outcome.. Downing Street Memo anyone?

So all this stuff was fabricated during the clinton admin is that what you're saying?

[DosEquis]

It is quite possible the clinton administration had both sides of the intelligence. This would mean they had reason to believe saddam was doing these kinds of things but not enough in intelligence reports to where presenting both sides would end up being strong enough support to start a war over it.

Like with bush we/congress only got one side of the intelligence story and not the other.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So all this stuff was fabricated during the clinton admin is that what you're saying?

Clinton had the wrong intelligence as well, but he didn't push us into war over it because he, like the Bush Administration after 9/11, knew that Iraq was completely contained and posed no threat to the United States.

There's video of people like Colin Powell talking about how effective the sanctions had been, etc.. so give me a break trying to compare what Clinton knew to what Bush did..

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

Clinton had the wrong intelligence as well, but he didn't push us into war over it because he, like the Bush Administration after 9/11, knew that Iraq was completely contained and posed no threat to the United States.

There's video of people like Colin Powell talking about how effective the sanctions had been, etc.. so give me a break trying to compare what Clinton knew to what Bush did..

This video shows plenty talking about the threat that we thought Iraq was in 1998...then after 9/11 we're supposed to ignore that? Why?

[Thomas Crown]

Another laughable idea. Bush forced the intelligence community to fabricate evidence around a scenario to justify a war so some buddies at Halliburton could make money from the no-bid contracts they were awarded (under the Clinton administration).

ANother laughable concept is the IGNORING of every single report of a WMD or materials used in the production of WMD found in Iraq (these can easily be found by search CNN's website using terms like RDX, Sodium-Cyanide, Sarin, etc). You don't keep condoms around unless you plan to fuck. And yes, SC can be used in water treatment, but it is generally found in water treatment facilities when used for that purpose.

There were also reports prior to the war of convoys of trucks leaving Iraq and crossing in to Iran and Syria. The intelligence also stated that the majority of the chemical weapons production was done in MOBILE labs near the border. Nope, no link there at all.

The UAEA also filed a report with the UN after the invasion wondering where all the equipment that they tagged that was used for the production of nuclear weapons magically disappeared to. "It was there before, we tagged it, honest!"

The best case scenario for anyone looking for an HONEST answer and not another slur against either side is that the intelligence was simply wrong. There is NO evidence at all, empirical or circumstantial that the intelligence was fabricated. There is more evidence to show it was right than there is to show it was wrong. Hundreds of tons of RDX, Sarin gas shells (yes, they were old, but he wasn't supposed to have them and he did. Condom. Fuck.), Sodium Cyanide (not in a water treatment facility), his own CLAIMS that he had them, the photos of the mobile manufacturing sites, etc. The evidence to the contrary is "hey, CNN said we didn't find anything and some politicians are using it for political gain."

The logical conclusion:
Have they found massive caches of WMD? No.
Did they find any caches of WMD? Yes.
Was the intelligence fabricated? No.

Simple as that.

Now, for those conveniently ignoring anything that contradicts their agenda, your turn to chime in.

[DosEquis]

His condoms were expired and left over from when he was banging that whore Iran in the 1980s. If he tried to use those condoms recently they would not have been affective. No they found no weapons caches of WMD. The dulfer report and the president himself came out and said it. He then reworded his statement from "having them" to "having the capability to". There were none. Get over it. They were wrong. Period. There were no weapons for which this country went to war.

[Thomas Crown]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

His condoms were expired and left over from when he was banging that whore Iran in the 1980s. If he tried to use those condoms recently they would not have been affective. No they found no weapons caches of WMD. The dulfer report and the president himself came out and said it. He then reworded his statement from "having them" to "having the capability to". There were none. Get over it. They were wrong. Period. There were no weapons for which this country went to war.

Expired? The hundreds of tons of RDX that was cataloged and tagged by the UAEA was from only a few years ago. The Sarin gas was the only thing that can really be considered an artifact from the Iran-Iraq war.

And the wording you speak of is the difference between the massive caches that were predicted (and were likely there but destroyed or moved just prior to the actual invasion) and what was actually found.

You cannot say "NO caches". There is evidence to the contrary. RDX, Sarin, Sodium Cyanide. All present during the invasion. So saying no is simply wrong. You can argue semantics all day long (which is what democrats do), but you cannot change that weapons caches were found. You can argue their purpose, you can argue their age, you can argue their quantity, but that is all.

And when the case for war was made, cabability was included in the reasons.

I don't care whether you like the war (I don't), agree with the war, or just hate Bush. But please don't be intellectually dishonest for the sake of an agenda by saying that Bush lied or intelligence was fabricated. If you want to assert that the intel was wrong, that is fine and I welcome a discussion on that. But don't pander to a personal agenda at the risk of the truth. It benefits NO ONE.

The truth can only be found by having intellectually honest discourses without agendas or preconceived opinions. Objectivity is key. There are plenty of things to legitimately hang a noose on GWB for. Pre-war intel isn't one of them.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

nixon and mao

Hey! Cut that out!

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

Expired? The hundreds of tons of RDX that was cataloged and tagged by the UAEA was from only a few years ago. The Sarin gas was the only thing that can really be considered an artifact from the Iran-Iraq war.

And the wording you speak of is the difference between the massive caches that were predicted (and were likely there but destroyed or moved just prior to the actual invasion) and what was actually found.

You cannot say "NO caches". There is evidence to the contrary. RDX, Sarin, Sodium Cyanide. All present during the invasion. So saying no is simply wrong. You can argue semantics all day long (which is what democrats do), but you cannot change that weapons caches were found. You can argue their purpose, you can argue their age, you can argue their quantity, but that is all.

And when the case for war was made, cabability was included in the reasons.

I don't care whether you like the war (I don't), agree with the war, or just hate Bush. But please don't be intellectually dishonest for the sake of an agenda by saying that Bush lied or intelligence was fabricated. If you want to assert that the intel was wrong, that is fine and I welcome a discussion on that. But don't pander to a personal agenda at the risk of the truth. It benefits NO ONE.

The truth can only be found by having intellectually honest discourses without agendas or preconceived opinions. Objectivity is key. There are plenty of things to legitimately hang a noose on GWB for. Pre-war intel isn't one of them.

So when your boy Bush and all his cronies say "we were wrong about Iraq having WMDs" that was just my imagination?

[Diamond Cross]

Yes it does. Democrats can do no wrong.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

here is one of FDR and Stalin, does that mean the Cold War was wrong to fight ?



nixon and mao

Mother Teresa and Mrs. Duvalier!


OH OH OH OH! And Baby Doc was pushed out of office by a REPUBLICAN president. Damn those Republicans for helping Haitians!

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

And the wording you speak of is the difference between the massive caches that were predicted (and were likely there but destroyed or moved just prior to the actual invasion) and what was actually found.

Why would Saddam keep WMD and say he destroyed them, then when we were coming to invade Iraq, then get rid of them. Why not use them to defend himself? To use your terminology, why would he save his condoms, then when we came over to fuck, destroy them or throw them out the window? Just to make us look silly?

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

You cannot say "NO caches". There is evidence to the contrary. RDX, Sarin, Sodium Cyanide. All present during the invasion. So saying no is simply wrong. You can argue semantics all day long (which is what democrats do), but you cannot change that weapons caches were found. You can argue their purpose, you can argue their age, you can argue their quantity, but that is all.

Yeah, you CAN argue their purpose and age. This war was sold to us on fears of evidence in the form of "mushroom clouds" and weapons able to strike London in 45 minutes. Those weapons were the ones that sold us on this war, and those weapons didn't exist. Leftover ineffective sarin from a decade or more ago is NOT the same thing, no matter how passionately you wish to assert otherwise.

[Thomas Crown]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Why would Saddam keep WMD and say he destroyed them, then when we were coming to invade Iraq, then get rid of them. Why not use them to defend himself? To use your terminology, why would he save his condoms, then when we came over to fuck, destroy them or throw them out the window? Just to make us look silly?

He never would have used them against us on his soil because he knew the consequences. He would have used them against his weaker enemies locally and allow "others" to use them. "Hey buddy, you gonna get some tail tonight, here's a condom."

Yeah, you CAN argue their purpose and age. This war was sold to us on fears of evidence in the form of "mushroom clouds" and weapons able to strike London in 45 minutes. Those weapons were the ones that sold us on this war, and those weapons didn't exist. Leftover ineffective sarin from a decade or more ago is NOT the same thing, no matter how passionately you wish to assert otherwise.

Selective memory loss is a funny thing. The WMD component of the reasons for war were numerous and not singularly nukes, or even just strikes on the US or our allies. Saddam has PROVEN he has no problems using WMD, we had intel saying he both had and was developing more.

Here is a metaphor for you:
Each argument for war (ousting a tyranical dictator, human rights violations, having WMD, developing more WMD, state support of terrorism, funding of terrorism, genocide, war crimes, violations of treatys, freeing the Iraqi people, failure to allow inspections, violation of no fly zones, his destablizing effect on the middle east, threats against the US, threats against our allies, harboring terrorists, etc) is a chain supporting the justification for invading. Most of these reasons alone are strong enough to support an regime change, but together they are more than strong enough. So from these chains hangs the righteousness of the war. Assume we were completely wrong and not only did he have no WMD, but he wasn't even trying to develop any or get any. Two chains down, while the rest still hold the weight just fine.

Just because you choose to single out ONE reason, doesn't mean there was only one reason. There were LISTS of reasons given during almost every speach on the topic given by the President. WMD was a big one, but nowhere near the only one. And pretending that it was is simply dishonest.

**EDIT**
and yes, it wouldn't be outside of Saddam's character to make the weapons disappear to make us look dumb. But that is not likely the reason. When it boils down to it, he would rather see them weapons in the hands of our enemies, than destroyed after the invasion.

[tbone]

Title of the thread:

Democrats Lied, Kids Died

Here are the facts that can be proven:

Clinton thought Saddam had WMD's, but did not invade. Did he have intelligence that contradicted WMD's? We don't know.

Bush thought Saddam had WMD's and invaded. Did he have intelligence that contradicted WMD's? YES, proof positive.

Bush presented only partial information about the intelligence to the Senate, Congress, and the American people. He left out the conflicting reports or the fact most of the chemical weapons were too old to be very dangerous to mass amounts of people.

Bush sent the "kids" into war, were in fact they were killed in greater numbers than were killed in the Sept. 11th attacks.

At no point in that video does any proof come up about democrats lying, they simply were given partial information. Prior to Bush they also chose not to go to war for whatever reason.

The Iraq catasphrope lies squarely on the GOP and Bush and Co.'s shoulders, no one can debate that and the voters obviously agree given the recent election results.

Stop beating a dead horse, Iraq has been judged by the American people and the world to be a mistake in all apsects. You cannot change that.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by tbone

Clinton thought Saddam had WMD's, but did not invade. Did he have intelligence that contradicted WMD's? We don't know.

Why would I expect him to, he's a Democrat

Bush thought Saddam had WMD's and invaded.

As I would have expected him to; he's a Republican!

[Thomas Crown]

Originally Posted by tbone

Title of the thread:

Democrats Lied, Kids Died

Here are the facts that can be proven:

Clinton thought Saddam had WMD's, but did not invade. Did he have intelligence that contradicted WMD's? We don't know.

Bush thought Saddam had WMD's and invaded. Did he have intelligence that contradicted WMD's? YES, proof positive.

Bush presented only partial information about the intelligence to the Senate, Congress, and the American people. He left out the conflicting reports or the fact most of the chemical weapons were too old to be very dangerous to mass amounts of people.

Bush sent the "kids" into war, were in fact they were killed in greater numbers than were killed in the Sept. 11th attacks.

At no point in that video does any proof come up about democrats lying, they simply were given partial information. Prior to Bush they also chose not to go to war for whatever reason.

The Iraq catasphrope lies squarely on the GOP and Bush and Co.'s shoulders, no one can debate that and the voters obviously agree given the recent election results.

Stop beating a dead horse, Iraq has been judged by the American people and the world to be a mistake in all apsects. You cannot change that.

I can squarely debate that because there is ZERO evidence (that means NONE) that any intelligence was fabricated or intentionally left out or that any actions were taken to pursuade using partial intelligence.

Your assertion is based on assumptions that you cannot prove yet you presume to tell someone they can't argue it? Doesn't work that way.

If you repeat something enough times, it doesn't make it true.

Also, those who have died volunteered to be put in the line of fire and have died over a period of years. Those that died on Sept. 11 did so with no willingness or even acknowledgement of inherent danger. They were murdered in two hours. Really pathetic parallel.

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by tbone

Title of the thread:

Democrats Lied, Kids Died

Here are the facts that can be proven:

Clinton thought Saddam had WMD's, but did not invade. Did he have intelligence that contradicted WMD's? We don't know.

Bush thought Saddam had WMD's and invaded. Did he have intelligence that contradicted WMD's? YES, proof positive.

Bush presented only partial information about the intelligence to the Senate, Congress, and the American people. He left out the conflicting reports or the fact most of the chemical weapons were too old to be very dangerous to mass amounts of people.

Bush sent the "kids" into war, were in fact they were killed in greater numbers than were killed in the Sept. 11th attacks.

At no point in that video does any proof come up about democrats lying, they simply were given partial information. Prior to Bush they also chose not to go to war for whatever reason.

The Iraq catasphrope lies squarely on the GOP and Bush and Co.'s shoulders, no one can debate that and the voters obviously agree given the recent election results.

Stop beating a dead horse, Iraq has been judged by the American people and the world to be a mistake in all apsects. You cannot change that.

Loical fallacy: appeal to common popularity.

Belief in numbers is not neccessarily a truth. If we go that route we might as well say thaat UFOs as alien spacecraft exist, Or that millions of religious Muslims are right and/or millions of Christians are right and God exists.

Sometimes people have to do what is right regardless of what the popular thing is.

For example, if 90% of Americans thought child sexual molestation was okay, would it be okay?

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

I can squarely debate that because there is ZERO evidence (that means NONE) that any intelligence was fabricated or intentionally left out or that any actions were taken to pursuade using partial intelligence.

Your assertion is based on assumptions that you cannot prove yet you presume to tell someone they can't argue it? Doesn't work that way.

ORLY?

The Committee’s investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq has revealed that the Bush Administration’s case for war in Iraq was fundamentally misleading. The Administration pursued a deceptive strategy of using intelligence reporting that the Intelligence community had already warned was uncorroborated, unreliable, and in critical instances, fabricated.

U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence

From the GOP controlled Senate and headed by a Republican Senator so don't try to claim bias.