On 31 Dec 2003 03:06:00 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

You and the Energizer bunny! A lie is a lie if told knowingly. You, et
al, have no proof that Bush, et al, KNEW that WMD did not exist in
Iraq. We still don't know that it did not exist there. You totally
disregard any evidence that it did exist, just so you can call someone
a liar.

Scott Ritter.
The UN inspectors.

Neither could find any evidence of WMD.

The Bush Administration said "We know they're there. We know exactly where, but
we're not going to tell the UN inspectors where they are at because we want to
show that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating with the inspectors."

Turned out not to be so.

When Iraq submitted the accounting for its weapons in December 2002, (multiple
volumes and 17,000 or so pages IIRC), it was dismissed in a matter of hours as
"all lies" by Bush. (Not bad for a guy who admits he doesn't read) So far, it
looks like the Iraqi accounting that said "No WMD" is every bit as credible as
a statement that we knew there were weapons and that we knew where they were.

According to Bush, any statement that Iraq did not have WMD or did not pose a
strategic threat to the US was a "lie."
He set the bar on this matter.

Could his lie have been an ignorant mistake? Yes, it could have been an
ignorant mistake. No less alarming if it was. Before we go sending our armed
forces off to invade foreign countries we ought to have some *actual* clue why
we're going about it.

I guess that's just a major difference in our attitudes, Chuck. It
sounds like you'd rather give Saddam the benefit of any doubt. I
wouldn't.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:

On 31 Dec 2003 03:06:00 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

You and the Energizer bunny! A lie is a lie if told knowingly. You, et
al, have no proof that Bush, et al, KNEW that WMD did not exist in
Iraq. We still don't know that it did not exist there. You totally
disregard any evidence that it did exist, just so you can call someone
a liar.

Scott Ritter.
The UN inspectors.

Neither could find any evidence of WMD.

The Bush Administration said "We know they're there. We know exactly where, but
we're not going to tell the UN inspectors where they are at because we want to
show that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating with the inspectors."

Turned out not to be so.

When Iraq submitted the accounting for its weapons in December 2002, (multiple
volumes and 17,000 or so pages IIRC), it was dismissed in a matter of hours as
"all lies" by Bush. (Not bad for a guy who admits he doesn't read) So far, it
looks like the Iraqi accounting that said "No WMD" is every bit as credible as
a statement that we knew there were weapons and that we knew where they were.

According to Bush, any statement that Iraq did not have WMD or did not pose a
strategic threat to the US was a "lie."
He set the bar on this matter.

Could his lie have been an ignorant mistake? Yes, it could have been an
ignorant mistake. No less alarming if it was. Before we go sending our armed
forces off to invade foreign countries we ought to have some *actual* clue why
we're going about it.

I guess that's just a major difference in our attitudes, Chuck. It
sounds like you'd rather give Saddam the benefit of any doubt. I
wouldn't.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

I wouldn't give Saddam Hussein any more benefit of the doubt than George
W. Bush; they're both liars of the first magnitude.

--
Email sent to is never read.

I guess that's just a major difference in our attitudes, Chuck. It
sounds like you'd rather give Saddam the benefit of any doubt. I
wouldn't.

John H

Same old right wing line: "If you're distressed about the techniques with which
Bush maneuvered public opinion to support the war in Iraq, that means that you
support Saddam Hussein."

Here's a brand new, shiny, thought for you to think. Take it out of the
wrapping and try
it on:

Demanding straight talk from public servants, including the POTUS, doesn't put
those who demand straight answers into the camp of America's political or
strategic enemies. To say that it does is to support the proposition that the
public is well served by duplicitous, scheming, politicians as long as the end
results are
somewhat acceptable.

Bush never said, "We're going into Iraq because we suspect he *might* have
WMD." We were told the weapons were there, for a certainty, and that they
presented an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States.
We were led to believe, for a while, based on information in the SOTU address,
no less,
that Saddam was going nuclear. (That statement was admitted to be false, and
retracted, but not before it had further whipped up the pro-war emotion of the
electorate----it's like the judge telling the jury, "Please ignore the
30-second video you were just shown of an individual holding up a convenience
store at gunpoint. It wasn't presented under the strict rules of
evidence"-----yeah, right.)

Gould 0738 wrote:

I guess that's just a major difference in our attitudes, Chuck. It
sounds like you'd rather give Saddam the benefit of any doubt. I
wouldn't.

John H

Same old right wing line: "If you're distressed about the techniques with which
Bush maneuvered public opinion to support the war in Iraq, that means that you
support Saddam Hussein."

Here's a brand new, shiny, thought for you to think. Take it out of the
wrapping and try
it on:

Demanding straight talk from public servants, including the POTUS, doesn't put
those who demand straight answers into the camp of America's political or
strategic enemies. To say that it does is to support the proposition that the
public is well served by duplicitous, scheming, politicians as long as the end
results are
somewhat acceptable.

Bush never said, "We're going into Iraq because we suspect he *might* have
WMD." We were told the weapons were there, for a certainty, and that they
presented an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States.
We were led to believe, for a while, based on information in the SOTU address,
no less,
that Saddam was going nuclear. (That statement was admitted to be false, and
retracted, but not before it had further whipped up the pro-war emotion of the
electorate----it's like the judge telling the jury, "Please ignore the
30-second video you were just shown of an individual holding up a convenience
store at gunpoint. It wasn't presented under the strict rules of
evidence"-----yeah, right.)



Yup. That's what Bush said. He lied.

--
Email sent to is never read.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:00:15 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:

Demanding straight talk from public servants, including the POTUS, doesn't
put those who demand straight answers into the camp of America's political
or strategic enemies. To say that it does is to support the proposition
that the public is well served by duplicitous, scheming, politicians as
long as the end results are
somewhat acceptable.


Before we invaded Iraq, I had a conversation with someone who said that if
we didn't find WMDs, we would plant them. I made the point that we didn't
have to plant WMDs, we just had to muddy the waters. Drop an article that
they were moved to Syria or Iran, people will believe what they want to
believe. Here we are, nine months later, debating whether Bush lied about
WMDs. To me, this is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant, in a
democracy, is that we *don't* know.

Maybe he lied. Maybe it was an intelligence failure. Maybe the neo-cons,
that have wanted Saddam's head since 1991, have co-opted this government.
Maybe Syria does have them. We just don't know. What we do know is our
elected officials in Washington seem to be more interested in next
November, than in the blood *we* are shedding today.

On 31 Dec 2003 16:00:15 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

I guess that's just a major difference in our attitudes, Chuck. It
sounds like you'd rather give Saddam the benefit of any doubt. I
wouldn't.

John H

Same old right wing line: "If you're distressed about the techniques with which
Bush maneuvered public opinion to support the war in Iraq, that means that you
support Saddam Hussein."

Here's a brand new, shiny, thought for you to think. Take it out of the
wrapping and try
it on:

Demanding straight talk from public servants, including the POTUS, doesn't put
those who demand straight answers into the camp of America's political or
strategic enemies. To say that it does is to support the proposition that the
public is well served by duplicitous, scheming, politicians as long as the end
results are
somewhat acceptable.

Bush never said, "We're going into Iraq because we suspect he *might* have
WMD." We were told the weapons were there, for a certainty, and that they
presented an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States.
We were led to believe, for a while, based on information in the SOTU address,
no less,
that Saddam was going nuclear. (That statement was admitted to be false, and
retracted, but not before it had further whipped up the pro-war emotion of the
electorate----it's like the judge telling the jury, "Please ignore the
30-second video you were just shown of an individual holding up a convenience
store at gunpoint. It wasn't presented under the strict rules of
evidence"-----yeah, right.)


Sorry Clams, I have to borrow this. Chuck keeps putting words in my
mouth. He keeps insisting Saddam is/was believable, while calling the
President a liar.

So, Chuck, please read and comment on the writings/statements below.
What did Saddam do to change during the period after these statements
were made? I did hear him tell Barbara Walters that he'd never had
chemical weapons, so I suppose everything he says is believable.
Personnaly, I think the fact that Saddam denied having weapons was
reason enough to believe that he did.

You mean...the Democrats were saying things like this:

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


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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 (FORMER) Sen. Bob Graham (D,
FL,) and
others,
December 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
mandated 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 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 weap
ons
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





John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!