Ultra liberals continue to call bush a liar. What do they want to achieve?

[MissCatholic]

Ultra liberals are still going calling Bush a liar. when are they going to realise that the war in Iraq has already happened. when are th eliberals going to realise that the whole international world thought they had nuvlear weapons. when are the liberals going to realise that they are commiting suicide by bringing up quotes below. it does nobody any good. For the good of the party drop it NOW!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE?

1. We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." 

2. "We owe it to America's parents and our country's troops … to have our decision on going to war with Iraq informed by the latest threat ****sment that cross-analyzes agency intelligence about Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." 

3. "I think all of us are deeply concerned about the degree to which certain countries seem to be contributing to the potential of instability in the world. Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq …"

4. Saddam Had Used WMD And Intended "To Do So" Again.  "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so.  That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East.  It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis.  It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." 

5. "Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction."

6. "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."

7. "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq… Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors… The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again… I have ordered a strong sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors… The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of this region, the security of the world… He will make war on his own people. And mark my words; he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them."

8. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk 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, and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

9. "When I vote 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…."

10. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

11. "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."

12. "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."

13. "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. The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people."

14. "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."

15. "I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to, but it's not September 11th, folks, and the fact is that what we've learned is that the war on terror is much more of an intelligence operation and a law enforcement operation."

[dazzleman]

Many liberals would rather see America lose than see Bush win.  That is the bottom line.  They don't care about our security or future; hatred of the president comes first.

It's nice to see you post something sensible, MissCatholic.

[opebo]

Many liberals would rather see America lose than see Bush win.  That is the bottom line.  They don't care about our security or future; hatred of the president comes first.

Well of course people who think the war was a mistake are relatively sanguine about 'America' 'losing'.  It would probably do us some good to have the warmongers slapped down, particularly in such an obvious error.  In a similar way Vietnam did the US a lot of good - led to a degree of humilty and probably saved untold lives by quelling American agression for ten years or so.  Our security and future depend on getting a better foreign policy - getting rid of the GOP and neocons.  This has nothing to do with hatred of Bush, though he is fairly despicable.  It just has to do with a disagreement about foreign policy.  Losing one small and idiotic war to get to a more cooperative, internationalist, and less aggressive foreign policy is well worth it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A lot of nutters have lost the plot, yes. And in doing so they lose the right to describe themselves as "anti war"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What's wrong with pointing out the obvious?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They don't care about our security or future

Iraq made us less secure. Ignoring the 8/06/01 memo made us less secure. Kerry would have made us more secure.

[Citizen James]

Many liberals would rather see America lose than see Bush win.  That is the bottom line.  They don't care about our security or future; hatred of the president comes first.

It's nice to see you post something sensible, MissCatholic.

And many conservatives would rather see America lose than Bush lose.

The war may have been justified on humanitarian grounds.   Though doing the right thing for the wrong reasons isn't a free pass.  If anyone had actually paid attention at the time, they would have noted that the CIA didn't think that he had WMD's, but admited it was feasable.

Meanwhile, genocide continues in the Sudan while we do nothing.  Will we wait until fifteen years after the fact (like we did in Iraq - you do realize that Saddam gassing the Kurds happened in the mid-80's, don't you?).

And still, the right hamstrings our millitary by overrelying on reserves - who are being used as cannon fodder by the neo-cons who care more about doing war on the cheap (and thus freeing up monies for pork like SDI and mininukes), rather than increasing recruitment for the regular army.

That's the paradox though.  Modern liberals, for the most part, care about our troops but question the rationale given for the war.  Modern conservatives have little but contempt for our troops, giving them little more than lip service and photo ops while shorting them on armor and recalling them for multiple tours after they have already met their obligation.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Many liberals would rather see America lose than see Bush win.  That is the bottom line.  They don't care about our security or future; hatred of the president comes first.

It's nice to see you post something sensible, MissCatholic.

And many conservatives would rather see America lose than Bush lose.

The war may have been justified on humanitarian grounds.   Though doing the right thing for the wrong reasons isn't a free pass.  If anyone had actually paid attention at the time, they would have noted that the CIA didn't think that he had WMD's, but admited it was feasable.

Meanwhile, genocide continues in the Sudan while we do nothing.  Will we wait until fifteen years after the fact (like we did in Iraq - you do realize that Saddam gassing the Kurds happened in the mid-80's, don't you?).

And still, the right hamstrings our millitary by overrelying on reserves - who are being used as cannon fodder by the neo-cons who care more about doing war on the cheap (and thus freeing up monies for pork like SDI and mininukes), rather than increasing recruitment for the regular army.

That's the paradox though.  Modern liberals, for the most part, care about our troops but question the rationale given for the war.  Modern conservatives have little but contempt for our troops, giving them little more than lip service and photo ops while shorting them on armor and recalling them for multiple tours after they have already met their obligation.

Or the Congo War, 3 million dead, the deadliest war since World War II.

[Jake]

They don't care about our security or future

Iraq made us less secure. Ignoring the 8/06/01 memo made us less secure. Kerry would have made us more secure.

Why would Kerry, or Gore if we want to talk about 9/11, make any different decisions. Why would Gore pay attention to a memo, when the administration he was a member us, and what he based his campaign around, ignored attack after attack. The 1993 WTC bombing should've told Clinton to act, he ignored it. The 1998 embassy bombings should've told Clinton to act, he didn't. The 2000 USS Cole bombing should've told him to act, he didn't.

[Beet]

The Gore team with the Clinton administration had worked with counter-terrorism and was keenly aware of the extreme threat due to their responsibilities in the government during the 1990s. The Bush team came in with an ideological bent towards missile defense initiatives, against China and North Korea, due to its representation in academic and intelligensia circles where discussing of "big ideas" of foreign policy took precedence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 1993 WTC bombing should've told Clinton to act, he ignored it. The 1998 embassy bombings should've told Clinton to act, he didn't. The 2000 USS Cole bombing should've told him to act, he didn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Conservatives keep digging up this myth created by their own echo chamber, and the sad thing is most of them genuinely believe it.

GOPhound,

Clinton took terrorism far more seriously than any previous President, and took it more seriously every year of his presidency, over the previous year. In the late 1990s counterterrorism funding surged. Security was beefed up, and beefed up once again. T

It's time for some facts here:
1. Clinton did nothing after the embassy bombings in Africa
2. Clinton did nothing after the WTC bombing in'93
3. Clinton did nothing after the USS Cole attack
4. Clinton did nothing to force Saddam to comply with the UN Sanctions he agreed to after the end of the Gulf War
5. Clinton did not want Osama captured and brought to the US because in his own words "It was a political hot potato" and he didn't think it was our legal right to bring him here.

You can throw all the numbers around that you want, the Clinton administration was a tremendous failure in dealing with terrorism.  He should have been killing these bastards after the first bombing in '93.  Now Bush has to deal with this mess. 

1. In 1998, the Clinton Administration demonstrated an atypically aggressive response toward terrorism after the assault on two U.S. embassies in Africa. In response, the U.S. launched cruise missiles on Aug. 20, 1998, striking a terrorism training complex in Afghanistan and destroying a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Khartoum, Sudan, that reportedly produced nerve gas. Past U.S. foreign policy has opted for the use of sanctions or a UN resolution authorizing the use of force, but the UN's flaccid dealings with Iraq, the lack of support from Muslim allies (most notably the Saudis' indifference to the 1996 truck bomb explosion that killed 19 U.S. service members), and the necessity of deterring attacks on other American embassies led to the U.S.'s more hawkish policy.


2. After the 1993 WTC attack which killed 6 people, security forces under Clinton increased counterterrorism funding, increased security at the World Trade Center, identified the perpetrators, and launched a worldwide manhunt. In February 1995, little over two years after the attack, Ramzi Yousef was apprehended in Pakistan. The threat from Mr. Yousef's gang was neutralized. Unlike Mr. bin Laden, the whereabouts of Mr. Yousef were not known, and unlike Mr. bin Laden, he was not openly being harbored by any regime. In September 2003, little after two years following the 9/11 attacks which killed three thousand people, the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden remained unknown. The threat from Al Qaeda remains clear and present.

3. After the USS Cole attacks, which killed seventeen, the military instituted procedures to make sure such an attack would never happen again. They increased pressure on Yemeni security forces and launched a broad manhunt that yielded arrests of six perpetrators and suspected members of Al Qaeda within months. Since then there have been no further such attacks on US vessels in the Middle East or elsewhere. In January 2001 when President Bush took office, he took no different approach to the Cole investigation than his predecessor had taken.

4. United States in December 1998 opened a prolonged attack on Iraq, unleashing more than 200 cruise missiles onto military installations and suspected weapons sites as punishment for Baghdad's refusal to allow the destruction of its chemical and biological weapons.

Clinton, speaking to the nation about an hour after the 4 p.m. CST attacks, said the United States was "delivering a powerful message to Saddam: If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price."

Clinton decided to attack after chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler concluded that President Saddam Hussein had failed to live up to Iraq's November pledge to cooperate fully with inspections that began after a U.S.-led coalition defeated Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War.

The Pentagon ordered a buildup that will soon place 40,000 U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf. And British fighters were poised to participate in the strikes.

5. The CIA under Clinton trained and armed about 60 Pakistani commandos in 1999 with plans for them to enter Afghanistan and capture or kill Osama bin Laden, U.S. officials confirmed to CNN Wednesday. The plan -- which was developed with then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif -- was scrapped on orders of Gen. Pervez Musharraf after he took over Pakistan in a coup. Under the deal the Clinton administration made with Sharif, economic sanctions against Pakistan would have been lifted in exchange for the operation.

6. I don't recall Bush making the administration's handling of terrorism a campaign issue. And I don't recall any BUSH plans to capture bin laden before 9/11.

Sure you can vote Republican.

You are ignore all the facts and say Clinton didn't care about defending his people.

But you can't say he did nothing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They don't care about our security or future

Iraq made us less secure. Ignoring the 8/06/01 memo made us less secure. Kerry would have made us more secure.

Why would Kerry, or Gore if we want to talk about 9/11, make any different decisions. Why would Gore pay attention to a memo, when the administration he was a member us, and what he based his campaign around, ignored attack after attack. The 1993 WTC bombing should've told Clinton to act, he ignored it. The 1998 embassy bombings should've told Clinton to act, he didn't. The 2000 USS Cole bombing should've told him to act, he didn't.

1996 anti-terrorism bill. Look it up. It's a watered down version of what Clinton wanted Congress to pass.

Ever heard of the LA airport bombing? Nope. Well maybe that's because it was sucessfully stopped during the Clinton adminstration.

[Citizen James]

They don't care about our security or future

Iraq made us less secure. Ignoring the 8/06/01 memo made us less secure. Kerry would have made us more secure.

Why would Kerry, or Gore if we want to talk about 9/11, make any different decisions. Why would Gore pay attention to a memo, when the administration he was a member us, and what he based his campaign around, ignored attack after attack. The 1993 WTC bombing should've told Clinton to act, he ignored it. The 1998 embassy bombings should've told Clinton to act, he didn't. The 2000 USS Cole bombing should've told him to act, he didn't.

1996 anti-terrorism bill. Look it up. It's a watered down version of what Clinton wanted Congress to pass.

Ever heard of the LA airport bombing? Nope. Well maybe that's because it was sucessfully stopped during the Clinton adminstration.

You gotta understand, these far right conservatives, they don't care about little things like facts .  Their only concern is in idological purity, facts be damned.  A simple google search for "millenium bomb plot" will turn up tons of reliable sources about prevented terrorist attack.  Heck, even conservative leaning Fox news[URL] makes note of it - but I'm sure our conservative friends will just write it off as "Liberal media" as they do for anything they don't want to see.

[Jake]

You stop one attack, and lob cruise missles when the others are successful.  A hell of alot of good blowing up a drug factory did, and good job on wasting a couple hundred million dollars worth of cruise missles in 1998. Nothing Clinton did prevented terrorism, it just reacted to terrorism and as soon as they finished reacting, they went back to sleep on it. Why wasn't 1998 the last time we were attacked? Because Clinton decided to lob cruise missles instead of solving the problem.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You stop one attack, and lob cruise missles when the others are successful.  A hell of alot of good blowing up a drug factory did, and good job on wasting a couple hundred million dollars worth of cruise missles in 1998. Nothing Clinton did prevented terrorism, it just reacted to terrorism and as soon as they finished reacting, they went back to sleep on it. Why wasn't 1998 the last time we were attacked? Because Clinton decided to lob cruise missles instead of solving the problem.

The Republicans said that OBL was irrelevant and that he was launching missiles to distract America from the pressing national security issue of a blow job.

It's your ing parties fault that Clinton wasn't able to go after Al Qaeda more. Quit blaming Clinton.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Many liberals would rather see America lose than see Bush win.  That is the bottom line.  They don't care about our security or future; hatred of the president comes first.

It's nice to see you post something sensible, MissCatholic.

And many conservatives would rather see America lose than Bush lose.

The war may have been justified on humanitarian grounds.   Though doing the right thing for the wrong reasons isn't a free pass.  If anyone had actually paid attention at the time, they would have noted that the CIA didn't think that he had WMD's, but admited it was feasable.

Meanwhile, genocide continues in the Sudan while we do nothing.  Will we wait until fifteen years after the fact (like we did in Iraq - you do realize that Saddam gassing the Kurds happened in the mid-80's, don't you?).

And still, the right hamstrings our millitary by overrelying on reserves - who are being used as cannon fodder by the neo-cons who care more about doing war on the cheap (and thus freeing up monies for pork like SDI and mininukes), rather than increasing recruitment for the regular army.

That's the paradox though.  Modern liberals, for the most part, care about our troops but question the rationale given for the war.  Modern conservatives have little but contempt for our troops, giving them little more than lip service and photo ops while shorting them on armor and recalling them for multiple tours after they have already met their obligation.

Or the Congo War, 3 million dead, the deadliest war since World War II.

actually that was Pakistan-Bangladesh, although the Congo War is a close second.

[Shira]

Many liberals would rather see America lose than see Bush win.  That is the bottom line.  They don't care about our security or future; hatred of the president comes first.

"Don't tell me what your views are. I will define your views and then I'll prove how wrong they are"

[Beet]

You stop one attack, and lob cruise missles when the others are successful.  A hell of alot of good blowing up a drug factory did, and good job on wasting a couple hundred million dollars worth of cruise missles in 1998. Nothing Clinton did prevented terrorism, it just reacted to terrorism and as soon as they finished reacting, they went back to sleep on it. Why wasn't 1998 the last time we were attacked? Because Clinton decided to lob cruise missles instead of solving the problem.

The Republicans said that OBL was irrelevant and that he was launching missiles to distract America from the pressing national security issue of a blow job.

It's your g parties fault that Clinton wasn't able to go after Al Qaeda more. Quit blaming Clinton.

Um, Bush has solved nothing. Terrorist attacks happen every day. We were attacked today in a terrorist attack in Iraq, 2 Americans killed. Yesterday there was another terror attack in New York on the British consulate. About 300 people have been killed by "terrorist" attacks in the past 5 days alone. Statistically the amount of terrorist attacks has surged since 2003. I can keep making points but seeing as I've already made zillions of them I can see you're never going to consider another position.

[Blue Rectangle]

The Republicans said that OBL was irrelevant and that he was launching missiles to distract America from the pressing national security issue of a blow job.

First Al Qaeda attacked the embassies, then Clinton had his little mea culpa, and then he ordered the missle attack.  It was Clinton who scheduled his TV appearance when he did.

You attack Bush for sitting still for a few minutes on 9/11, but you blame the Republicans for why it took Clinton days to respond to a terrorist attack.  Clinton chose to spend time planning how to spin his scandal during a time when he should have been devoting all his energy to defending our country.

It's your g parties fault that Clinton wasn't able to go after Al Qaeda more. Quit blaming Clinton.

So Clinton wanted to attack Al Qaeda, but he was afraid that the Republicans might accuse him of diverting attention from his sex scandal?  Exactly how does this make Clinton a strong leader who puts national security first?

[Shira]

"Ultra liberals continue to call bush a liar."

First it is not only the "Ultra liberals"
Second: The problem is that this is true. Bush is a liar in the better case or having hallucinations in the worst case

[TheresNoMoney]

Bush IS a liar. He's lied about a lot more than the war.

[Shira]

As I mentioned Bush is either a liar or suffers from hallucinations, but when we deal with Cheney, it becomes very clear: The guy IS a liar.
He knew very well that Iraq had no WMD and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

[A18]

"Ultra liberals continue to call bush a liar."

First it is not only the "Ultra liberals"
Second: The problem is that this is true. Bush is a liar in the better case or having hallucinations in the worst case

I gave you Clinton's quotes saying the exact same things Bush said. Was he hallucinating, or was he lying? I suppose Clinton is an admitted liar, after all.

[Shira]

"Ultra liberals continue to call bush a liar."

First it is not only the "Ultra liberals"
Second: The problem is that this is true. Bush is a liar in the better case or having hallucinations in the worst case

I gave you Clinton's quotes saying the exact same things Bush said. Was he hallucinating, or was he lying? I suppose Clinton is an admitted liar, after all.

Could you cite the exact wording of Clinton and the exact wording of Bush.

[A18]

Yes, and I did in the other topic.

[MissCatholic]

Look no politician LIES! i dont care who they are or what they say, they dont LIE!

The best thing to do is just sit tight and wait for bush to make mistakes. bush will dig his own grave. but while ultra liberals go round calling him a liar all it does is make the republicans more stubbornly support him.