Oh Snap! McClellan TUBs Bush & Co.

After McClellan attacked Dr. Rice as a Bush sycophant, there was a storm of protest by feminists....Well, actually not. The feminists will rush to the aid of William Jefferson during his frequent bouts with sexual harassment and worse, but if a double minority conservative is demeaned by a man the feminists are tone deaf. ....
Uh, feminists? Are you speaking of a particular group?

Being a feminist doesn't make you a blind supporter of all women. That contradicts the principles of the feminist movement.

Rice is a Bush sycophant. I can't see how anyone watching the administration for the last 7+ years wouldn't have come to that same conclusion.
 
Certainly you must realize (if you did any due diligence) that the main reason for going to war was the enforcement of the many UN resolutions that Saddam wouldn't comply with. Culminating in 1441, authorizing the use of force, there was 689, 660, etc. etc. Harping on the WMD reasoning is a convienent sleight-of-hand, actually.

It's interesting when the Bush bashers talk about an "illegal war" that was against "international law", yet totally ignore the UN resolutions that are really the only "international law" that are worth looking at.
Oh for crying out loud. This crap has been debunked time and time again. It's over. Those of us saying Bush was deceitful and a warmonger and the war was a mistake have been vindicated. Unfortunately it is 6 years later than it should have been.
 
Being called a lying weasel for being a lying weasel is 'demeaning', while actually being a lying weasel is not?

By this logic, being told that your foot is covered with doggy doo after you step in doggy doo is worse than having your foot covered in doggy doo.
<guffaw>

That is nasty. Especially since Bob didn't actually read what Scott wrote. Bob's Viagra prescription expire or what??
Or maybe he od'ed on it.
 
Oh for crying out loud. This crap has been debunked time and time again. It's over. Those of us saying Bush was deceitful and a warmonger and the war was a mistake have been vindicated. Unfortunately it is 6 years later than it should have been.

Not to mention that, had Bush suggested going to war over UN resolution, the neocons would have run him out of town on a rail. You know, considering that any hardcore nationalist... uh, I mean, upright American patriot... considers the UN the embodiment of evil, second only to Bill Clinton.
 
That is nasty. Especially since Bob didn't actually read what Scott wrote.
According to Wonkette, it has a postscript unquoted by Fox News:

P.S. Eat a bag of dicks.

Who knew what rage seethed and bubbled beneath that grandpaternal exterior? Mind you, I'd be cross if I was an impotent has-been.
 
Last edited:
FORTHURSsCOLOR.gif
 
Being called a lying weasel for being a lying weasel is 'demeaning', while actually being a lying weasel is not?

By this logic, being told that your foot is covered with doggy doo after you step in doggy doo is worse than having your foot covered in doggy doo.

What is this "lie" (knew the facts to be otherwise, but intentionally deceived) Dr. Rice has told? Considering your characterization of Dr. Rice as a "weasel," your judgement is too severely impaired to render any useful analysis. But thank you for sharing your experiences with animal feces.
 
Uh, feminists? Are you speaking of a particular group?

Being a feminist doesn't make you a blind supporter of all women. That contradicts the principles of the feminist movement.

Rice is a Bush sycophant. I can't see how anyone watching the administration for the last 7+ years wouldn't have come to that same conclusion.

What feminist group do you consider yourself a part of?

Since nobody ever heard a peep out of any feminists organizations about Clinton's notorious predilection for sexual harassment, their vision was severely impaired for eight years. But of course he supported abortion on demand so that explains the pass he got from Steinem et al.

Because Dr. Rice supported the Iraq War she is a sycophant? Does that mean Hillary is one as well? How about Colin Powell? They both shared Dr. Rice's assessment.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but if these resolutions as I suspect all had to do with making sure there were no WMDS, and there were no WMDS, I think in his twisted way of thinking Saddam felt justified in feeling that fully complying with the resolutions were not justified since there were no WMDs to which they would apply. He certainly did allow several teams of inspectors into the country and they found nothing. The basis for going to war was not these resolutions, in spite of what Condie pleads, they were Colin Powell's performance in the UN with fabricated photos of mobile bio warfare labs and faulty or deliberately faked intelligence.

Sure blame the war on the U.N. now. That's funny.

No, you're wrong and I will correct you.

Oh for crying out loud. This crap has been debunked time and time again. It's over. Those of us saying Bush was deceitful and a warmonger and the war was a mistake have been vindicated. Unfortunately it is 6 years later than it should have been.

No, you're wrong as well and have not been vindicated. And I can't believe that anyone would think that this war was a mistake. At least anyone who has the slightest ability to discern right from wrong and can read UN resolutions.
 
There were several violations of the cease fire by Iraq during the post gulf war 1 time. Coalition aircraft were fired on a number of times. Now, if you violate a cease fire, doesn't that mean that you no longer honor the agreement that brought about the cease fire? And if you don't honor an agreement then no agreement exists. If no cease fire agreement exists then you have no cease fire.

Thank you for injecting some refreshing facts into this Bush-bash fest that is devoid of facts. Yes, technically, the second Gulf War was a resumption of hostilities from the first Gulf War because Saddam never lived up to the conditions of the cease-fire, hence the 17 UN resolutions against him. some of which AUTHORIZED the use of force.. Of course, there are also the issue of the 300+ mass graves, terrorist training camp called Salman Pak in the suburbs of Baghdad, Saddam paying Palestinian suicide bombers family $25K, etc. Of course, the left-wing moonbats are eagerly willing to overlook ALL that in their quest to engage in illogical Bush bashing.
 
Last edited:
Wow, in spite of all kinds of evidence you guys just hold on to those tired talking points. Amazing.
 
More facts for the uninformed who say that Bush manipulated evidence and had mental brainwashing powers over all other politicans. Yet they also say that Bush is quite dumb.

Pre-war quotes from democrats..

"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the 4 years since the inspectors, 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-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. Hillary Clinton
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10288&position=all

John Kerry: “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002)

John Kerry: “I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.”

"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
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10174&position=all

John Kerry on the floor of the Senate
October 2002:

"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question:

Why?

Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up?

Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community?

Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster?

Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke?

Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits?

Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously?

Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified?

Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?


Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10171&position=all

“The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002
Congressional Record - Sen. Ted Kennedy
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10090&dbname=2002_record

John Kerry: “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002)

John Kerry: “I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.”

John Kerry: “I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that--that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (October 2002)

John Kerry: “If You Don’t Believe . . . Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.” (January 2003)

John Kerry: Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. (March 2003)

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."..."Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction." –
Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John Edwards
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10325&position=all

"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 Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2001/011207/epf510.htm

"We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." -
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002
Online with Jim Lehrer – Public Broadcasting Service
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_12-10.html

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"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
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"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
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy


"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
Congressional Record – Robert Byrd
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S9874&position=all


"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
Congressional Record –Sen. Jay Rockefeller


"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
Congressional Record – Rep. Henry Waxma
 
Last edited:
Wow, in spite of all kinds of evidence you guys just hold on to those tired talking points. Amazing.

Sorry to burst your bush-bashing bubble with FACTS, but that's what they are and your preconceived notions that are ill conceived, can't explain them away.
 
Not like none of this has been hashed and rehashed, ec. What makes you think you are posting revelations here? You are posting mostly winger memes as Dr A called them earlier. Both sides have winger memes on this topic.

If you want to defend your position, start first by deleting all the crap that "someone else did it too". That would be the first place to start. Because that is a Bushco circular argument. They put out the false information and tried tied to discredit the contradictory information. So anyone who "did it too" would have been going by the false picture that Bush and his admin were manipulating.

Second, there were people objecting to the facts as they were being presented at the time. There was Clarke, Blix, Ritter, Wilson and others. Recently, others have come forward and revealed that Bush and his inner circle were indeed cherry picking evidence to present while trying to discredit evidence that didn't support the invasion.

You cannot explain the Plame affair by sidetracking the issue as to whether she was undercover or not or whether Libby or Rove made the actual calls. Bottom line is Bush had information he 'decided' not to use and also, not to let other people decide for themselves.

Bush clearly made no effort to sort the information out. Just claiming other people didn't figure it out either ignores the fact other people didn't have control over the top Bushies who told everyone the information was solid when it wasn't. And that includes the attempt by Bush to claim other intelligence departments from other countries also drew the same conclusions. They did actually, try the Downing St memo for one. And the Italians told the CIA that Chalabi was a liar.
 
Sorry to burst your bush-bashing bubble with FACTS, but that's what they are and your preconceived notions that are ill conceived, can't explain them away.

None of the quotes you gave are unassailable facts. They are justifications voiced by people who were lied to by Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rice et al, etc etc. If you are told a lie and believe it you will get the kind of result you illustrate. The news to date is that no WMDs were found in Iraq by our invading troops in 2003 and since, as well as by inspection teams throughout the late 1990s.

There are no qualms Saddem was a despot, there are no qualms he was a madman. However there are numerous other nations throughout the world (Africa comes to mind)
with similar rulers, similar atrocities but the U.S. and its coalition of the fooled don't seem willing to go in and clean them up .... probably because of a lack of mineral wealth. ??
Cease fire violations have taken place between the two Koreas, one side of which we
man with our forces for half a century. We have managed not to have gone back to having a hot war with the North. Probably because there is nothing in the North we really feel is worth it ..like mineral wealth. Could it be?

And while I hesitate to defend Saddem because he was a despot and a madman, you have to wonder if he shot at coalition flights, technically violating the cease fire, because he was concerned they may have been Iranian or Israeli overflights rather than U.S. or British. In which case he felt he would have been fully justified to send some flak their way.

So the bigger question is after regime change was effected, after there was a free election, complete with purple fingers, after Saddem was executed and after coalition forces didn't find any WMDs why didn't we go home, taking Halliburton, KBR, and all the other contractors with us? Surely Halliburton which is now officially headquartered in Dubai could find some pots to stir and business in the region without this war?
 
Last edited:
There was Clarke, Blix, Ritter, Wilson and others. Recently, others have come forward and revealed that Bush and his inner circle were indeed cherry picking evidence to present while trying to discredit evidence that didn't support the invasion.

And the Italians told the CIA that Chalabi was a liar.

1) Clarke and Wilson had their own agenda and even though the libs think of them as heroes, they are just self-aggrandizing sots. Val Plame's book went straight into the cut out bin.

2) Blix was a enemy of the Bush administration from day one. He had zero intention of enforcing any repercussions for Iraq violating U.N. sanctions. Since leaving the U.N. Blix prances around as if he were Mahatma Gandhi.

3) Ritter was on Saddam's payroll. He was saying Saddam did not have WOMD's at the same time Saddam was saying that he did have them. Who would you beleive? That's a rhetorical if ever there was one.

4) Curveball was never proven to be a liar before March, 2003. It was his info that the CIA counted on way more than Chalabi.
 
Last edited:
And while I hesitate to defend Saddem because he was a despot and a madman, you have to wonder if he shot at coalition flights, technically violating the cease fire, because he was concerned they may have been Iranian or Israeli overflights rather than U.S. or British. In which case he felt he would have been fully justified to send some flak their way.

You didn't hesitate long enough. Imagine if Saddam had fired on Russian aircraft in the no-fly-zone because, as you say, he had no way of discerning the aircraft's country of origin.

Had Bush 41 taken Baghdad when he had half a million troops in the theater of operations back in 1991, there would not be a Saddam in power to shoot at U.S. aircraft since Operation Desert Storm.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom