PoliticsGOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: SeachRE who wrote (94787)4/16/2007 8:20:31 PM
From: Hope Praytochange
2 Recommendations   of 173965

"LISBON (AFP) Jan 09, 2004
Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said late Thursday.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regimein an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias."

"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

"Clinton sought to pursue an intensified version of the strategy of the first [first] Bush administration. His administration carried out repeated cruise missile strikes and two brief but bloody bombing campaigns, organized provocations by the UN inspectors, maintained the sanctions and the “no-fly” zones, and infiltrated CIA agents among the UN inspectors in order to plan the assassination of Saddam Hussein. Clinton also authorized several abortive coup attempts, as well as overt CIA terrorist actions, including those carried out in the mid-1990s by Ayad Allawi, now the US-appointed interim prime minister. Clinton also signed the Iraq Liberation Act, making “regime change” the official policy of the United States."

"But who exactly got it wrong? Intelligence agencies obviously exaggerated Iraq's WMD potential, and it's well known that they were egged on by their political masters in the Bush administration. But that's not the whole story. In fact, Bush's manipulation of Iraq intelligence was built on a foundation established during the late 1990's, when Bill Clinton was in the White House.

Faced with the need to justify an economically devastating and internationally unpopular embargo of Iraq, the Clinton administration engaged in a pattern of stretching and distorting weapons data to bolster their claim that Saddam Hussein was still hiding an illicit arsenal. The Clinton White House never used that "intelligence" to push for an invasion of Iraq, as Bush so effectively did. But in its desperate quest to salvage a crumbling Iraq policy, the Clinton White House laid the groundwork for the deceptions of their successors."

"President Bush and two inspectors he appointed to find the weapons have all said the evidence of the weapons has not turned up, and the president announced shortly after he won the 2004 elections that the search for Saddam's WMD was over. But at the same time, Mr. Hoekstra is not alone in his concerns about the whereabouts of Saddam's arsenal. Prime Minister Sharon and his Israel Defense Force chief of staff during the Iraq war, Moshe Yaalon, have said weapons were transferred from Iraq to Syria before the war, a view also promoted by a former Iraqi air force general, Georges Sada. Senator Clinton last week acknowledged that the possibility is still a live one, saying, "there were no weapons, or if there were, they certainly weren't used or they were in some way disposed of or taken out of the country."

In the weeks before and following the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, at least 10 facilities believed by American, European, and Israeli intelligence to be for the production and research of chemical and biological weapons were systematically looted by members of Iraq's Republican Guard, ordered by the regime's leadership to destroy and hide evidence of the programs, according to current and former intelligence officials from America, Britain and Israel. In interviews with the New York Sun, these officials reflect the position of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in the months after the war: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

CNN/AllPolitics - Storypage, with TIME and Congressional Quarterly

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
CNN/AllPolitics - Storypage, with TIME and Congressional Quarterly

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

Here's Shrillary:
“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.”

Message 23395573
Did you miss that? Are`you SERIOUS? Slick and top people in his admin REPEATEDLY said SH had WMD advocated regime change!

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
- -Bill Clinton, 1998
To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (94761) 4/16/2007 6:51:21 PM
From: Lazarus_Long Read Replies (1) of 94813

Let me HELP YOU. You obviously need as much as you can get.
The important parts are pulled out. READ THEM THIS TIME!
Otherwise, you get a whole new set NEXT time!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (94756)4/16/2007 8:22:01 PM
From: American Spirit
   of 173965
It is the NRA which has politicized and exploited gun ownership and turned it into a highly partisan issue. There are no moderate or progressive voices in the NRA, only rightwing extremist types. They are the gun lobby but also the equivalent of the religious right in that all kinds of people, including liberal-minded ones, like to own and use guns, but according to the NRA guns are for far rightwing whites only.

Thgis is why the NRA needs to be opposed and disbanded. Some of its arguments are also very dishonest and unrealistic. And the 2nd amendment was not put in there to allow rightwing extremist groups to threaten the government or law enforcement. It was put in there for the people to be able to challenge tyrants, like Bush-Cheney have tried to become. Yet the only recent presdient the NRA has fought against is CLinton, a man of the people whgo was very inclusive and bi-partisan, the opposite of tyrannical.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (4)

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (94755)4/16/2007 8:24:28 PM
From: American Spirit
1 Recommendation   of 173965
My father was shot in the head by a crazy lady who got her hands on a gun. It was in Texas where the NRA has gotten some of their most liberal gun laws passed.

So don't tell me about gun violence. If you're a victim too then you need to stand up to the NRA and support the Brady Bill which the Reagan family supports. It is a common sense bill which will reduce gun violence drastically.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Bill who wrote (94576)4/16/2007 8:35:20 PM
From: Land Shark
   of 173965
HAL was near bankruptcy in '01 before Big Dick Cheney came to the rescue.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: longnshort who wrote (94674)4/16/2007 8:38:00 PM
From: Land Shark
   of 173965
swift boaters were bald faced liars.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: longnshort who wrote (94674)4/16/2007 8:42:25 PM
From: American Spirit
   of 173965
The smearvets were an evil hoax on the American electorate. Not a single truth in anything they claimed. There is talk in congress now oif enacting new tough laws against deliberatekly misleading voters making smearvets type campaigns felonies punishable up to five years in a federal penitentariy. All the smearvets liars deserve prison. They hoodwinked a lot of otherwise good Americans into believing the opposite of the truth.

On top of this, new evidence coming out of Ohio shows Bush stole the election there. So Kerry is the legitimate president.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)

To: American Spirit who wrote (94815)4/16/2007 8:43:29 PM
From: longnshort
   of 173965
it was a chinese nationalist, a democrat loving socialist, probably got the gun from china

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Bill who wrote (94576)4/16/2007 8:43:35 PM
From: American Spirit
   of 173965
Under Bush-Cheney HAL stock has gone up 400% due to huge no-bid contracts with almost no accountability. HAL is also a huge tax evader.

I bought HAL stock 5-7 years ago at $21 a share so I know.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Land Shark who wrote (94817)4/16/2007 8:44:15 PM
From: longnshort
   of 173965
no, truth tellers

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Bill who wrote (94806)4/16/2007 8:45:03 PM
From: American Spirit
   of 173965
Virginia's Lax Gun Laws May Have Contributed Today

But as easy as it is to load up on high-powered guns and ammo in Virginia, it's just an average state. With the NRA intimidating politicians throughout the country some states now actually have laws making murder legal if you claim you "felt threatened" by the gunshot victim.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2016 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.